PGA Tour Caddies file class-action suit against PGA Tour for use of likeness, bibs

[Pretzel]

Guys, here's the thing in this lawsuit:

Caddies are not employed by the PGA Tour!

Keeping this in mind, let's explore two parallels in a hypothetical situation here:

You	The Caddies
You are employed contractually by McDonald's	Caddies are employed contractually by pro golfers
Your contract specifies that you must wear a uniform at work	Caddies' contracts specify that they must wear a uniform at work
Your employers gives you the uniform you must wear	The caddies' employers (the players) give caddies their uniforms
You must wear the uniform or you can be fired	The caddies must wear the uniform or they can be fired

In neither of these cases does the employee receive extra compensation from a third party (someone who is not the employer) for what is on their uniform. Nor should they.

[Patch]

Why not just have the player wear his own name on his shirt? Is there PGA/USGA reason the caddy has to wear his employer's name?

[Rick Martin]

Why not just have the player wear his own name on his shirt? Is there PGA/USGA reason the caddy has to wear his employer's name?

cool....make golfers wear jerseys like other sports?

[dkolo]

cool....make golfers wear jerseys like other sports? [URL=http://thesandtrap.com/content/type/61/id/113986/] [/URL]

I wonder if he'd go with number 18 for his number, sort of how Joe Girardi chose 27 when he became manager of the Yankees to signify wanting to win the 27th title for the team.

[Hoya Destroya]

It goes beyond the IRS. States have rules and regulations regarding independent contractors as well (Workers Comp, Unemployment Insurance, Vicarious Liability) There are also state tax issues. For example I believe certain states tax winner's earnings if earned while playing in their state. There have been IRS and State rulings regarding caddies in this regard but to my knowledge they have only applied to club caddies as opposed to PGA caddies. And by the way this proposed "Class Action Suit" also is brought in the name of caddies for the Champions Tour and the Web.com tour. The big question is whether the court will certify this class for purposes of a class action. Briefly amongst other requirements the plaintiffs must show that their group is representative of all members of the class (and that would include the Web.com and Champions caddies). The final decision will be binding on all caddies unless they affirmatively opt out of the class.

[Quadhole]

We have seen this before. You know that when a pro hires a cad and has him sign a contract it states you work for me, have to wear whatever the PGA gives to me and I give to you. If I make it to the masters, well, of course you have to wear the jump suit, if they give you a banner that is 6 feet long and looks stupid, you have to wear it, we made sure to put it in your contract that you must adhere to all reasonable requests.. Are you ok with that ? Oh yea ! I have waited my entire life to be a pro caddie and can't wait, great pay and I get to see the world... I will do whatever you or they or anyone asks of me, where do I sign ?

Fast forward 15 years.... One caddie to another that have hauled clubs for 15 years, live in a 300K house and have 300K in the bank each...

Tom ::  "This is BS ! I hate wearing this stupid ad on my chest, I heard they get an extra 10K per player for these things"

Sal : Yea well what do I get ? Nothing and my wife says it looks ridiculous on me...

Tom : We neer had to do this years ago. I don't even know if it is in my cntract.

Sal : ine only says something about reasonable atire...

Tom : There all making so much money. If I had the tie to pratice I would have been a pro too, but I dedicated my life to this guy and the tour the least they ould do is pay us reasonably...

Sal : Both y boys are in ollege, my ex left because Iam on the road so much and all I get is a measly 200K a year. I should just quit and get ready for the senoir tour...

Tom   My buddy said we could AYBE file suit, you know just like the NFL players did for the concussion thing... They got paid and most had little or nothing to do with it.

Sal: At least this would be diided equally. I know my pro won't mind... Let's do it.. we got nothing to lose and we deserve it... This is really hard work, all the travel, away from home, Dont get to see our kids, divorce, etc... It has basically ruined my life and what do I get for it. I neer wanted to do this anyway !

Tom : Me either, he practically beg me to be his caddie, as I remember it........

[ay33660]

What this issue comes down to is that if Person A performs an act that generates revenue for Person B, Person B should compensate Person A fairly for that act. But then maybe you don't believe that.

This case does not come down to "at least the caddy has a job" because Person B, the corporate sponsor, is not providing the caddy a job. The player is.

The caddy is performing a revenue generating act for the sponsor and not getting compensated for it.

The mere fact that this is the current condition on the Tour does not make it right.

I would like to see what happened if enough Tour players, including the top stars, supported their caddy by saying, "My caddy isn't going to wear a General Widgets bib in this tournament," and stuck to it.

The bib has the name of the title sponsor.

The title sponsor paid millions and millions of dollars to become the title sponsor.

The sponsors do so because they expect to get lots of exposure for their company.

The money is used for - tournament purses, pay operating expenses of the tournament, donations to charities.

Professional tour players enter the tournaments. This is how they earn their living. They only make money from the tournament if they make that cut and the amount of money they make depends on how high they finish. Other than no cut tournament like the WGC, not every player will make any money. This is the way professional golf works.

Caddies are employed by professional golfers. They work specifically for one player. They make there money by a combination of a monthly stipend and a percentage of the player's winnings.

"The caddy is performing a revenue generating act for the sponsor and not getting compensated for it."

Player enters tournament. As part of the requirements of entering the tournament his caddie must wear a bib with the tournament sponsor on it.

Player makes his money by entering tournaments and winning a part of the tournament purse paid for by the title sponsor. His caddie make a percentage of the player's winnings.

The nature of the professional golf business is that both the player and his caddie only make money if the player makes the cut. Also the amount of earnings is dependent on how high the player finishes.

To me there is a direct relationship from the tournament sponsor to the caddie. His earnings for the week comes directly from the sponsor via his player's winnings for the week.

Am I missing something?

"I would like to see what happened if enough Tour players, including the top stars, supported their caddy by saying, "My caddy isn't going to wear a General Widgets bib in this tournament," and stuck to it."

Players and their caddies are free not to enter any tournament they do not want to but if they do not enter any tournaments then they and their caddies wont make any money (other then direct endorsements).

Again what am I missing?

[turtleback]

The nature of the professional golf business is that both the player and his caddie only make money if the player makes the cut. Also the amount of earnings is dependent on how high the player finishes.

To me there is a direct relationship from the tournament sponsor to the caddie. His earnings for the week comes directly from the sponsor via his player's winnings for the week.

I'm not really sure what you were trying to say, but I object to these two statements.

On the first, the caddie gets paid for his work even if the player does not make the cut.  I do not think there are caddies that work on a contingency basis.

On the second, no his earnings do NOT come directly from the sponsor via his player's winnings.  Any more so than the McDonalds' employee's pay comes directly from customer.  You cannot use directly and via together this way.  If it came directly from the sponsor, for example, every caddie would get the same cut if his player wins.  The sponsor would cut 2 checks, one for the player, one for the caddie.  That is nothing like the actual economic transaction that is occurring.

[newtogolf]

I'm not really sure what you were trying to say, but I object to these two statements.

On the first, the caddie gets paid for his work even if the player does not make the cut.  I do not think there are caddies that work on a contingency basis.

On the second, no his earnings do NOT come directly from the sponsor via his player's winnings.  Any more so than the McDonalds' employee's pay comes directly from customer.  You cannot use directly and via together this way.  If it came directly from the sponsor, for example, every caddie would get the same cut if his player wins.  The sponsor would cut 2 checks, one for the player, one for the caddie.  That is nothing like the actual economic transaction that is occurring.

The caddie gets a percentage of the pro golfers winnings from a tournament as a bonus to his normal compensation.  Directly he gets paid this bonus by the player, indirectly the money comes from the sponsor.  If there wasn't a sponsor that funded the prize money for the tournament the caddie wouldn't collect a bonus on the players placement in the tournament.

[ay33660]

I'm not really sure what you were trying to say, but I object to these two statements.

On the first, the caddie gets paid for his work even if the player does not make the cut.  I do not think there are caddies that work on a contingency basis.

On the second, no his earnings do NOT come directly from the sponsor via his player's winnings.  Any more so than the McDonalds' employee's pay comes directly from customer.  You cannot use directly and via together this way.  If it came directly from the sponsor, for example, every caddie would get the same cut if his player wins.  The sponsor would cut 2 checks, one for the player, one for the caddie.  That is nothing like the actual economic transaction that is occurring.

On your first comment about being paid I noted in my post - " Caddies are employed by professional golfers. They work specifically for one player. They make there money by a combination of a monthly stipend and a percentage of the player's winnings."

On your second comment you are correct it was very poorly worded. I should not have said directly from in my comment - " His earnings for the week comes directly from the sponsor via his player's winnings for the week" . The caddie's earnings do not come directly from the sponsor but in fact the sponsor pays the player and the caddie earn's a percentage from the player. While there is no direct fund flow from the tournament I would suggest that the player is using the funds in his account to pay the caddie and part of those funds do in fact come from tournament winnings and others would be from endorsements. Therefore tournament pays player who then pays caddie.

[Pretzel]

The caddies are not being paid by the title sponsor. The caddies are not being paid by the tour. The caddies are contact employees of the players. The players, as an employee of a contracted employee, are allowed to dictate a dress code that the caddies, as the contracted employee, must follow as stated in the contract. Case closed

[Jeremie Boop]

More than 150 Caddies Are Involved in a $50 million Lawsuit Against the PGA Tour

I can't say I disagree with them at all. I don't see why they can't be given at least a portion of the money generated by the advertising on the bibs considering they are required to wear them.

[newtogolf]

More than 150 Caddies Are Involved in a $50 million Lawsuit Against the PGA Tour

I can't say I disagree with them at all. I don't see why they can't be given at least a portion of the money generated by the advertising on the bibs considering they are required to wear them.

Read back through the thread it's all explained there.  The caddies are employed by the players they carry a bag for.  They have no direct affiliation with the PGA Tour, nor should they expect the PGA Tour to provide them revenue shares on advertising for health care and pension.  The union should be suing the PGA Tour players, not the Tour itself.

[billchao]

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golf-central-blog/tours-venue-change-bid-denied-caddies-lawsuit/

Quote:

A U.S. District Court judge denied the PGA Tour ’s motion to change venue on Thursday in the circuit’s ongoing lawsuit with a group of more than 80 caddies.

The lawsuit was filed in February in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. It claims the Tour has engaged in restraint of trade and anticompetitive conduct involving the caddie bib, and challenges the requirement that caddies wear bibs with sponsor names on them without any compensation.

Attorneys for the caddies filed the lawsuit in California because the Tour has an office in San Francisco and because of that court’s involvement in the Ed O’Bannon vs. NCAA lawsuit last year, which was based on similar arguments to what the caddies are making against the Tour.

The Tour requested the change of venue to Florida’s middle district in March, claiming its offices in San Francisco are “temporary” and include “approximately 10 employees.”

The circuit also pointed out Florida’s middle district is closer to the Tour’s headquarters in Ponte Vedra Beach, Fla., but after a hearing that lasted about 40 minutes judge Vince Chhabria denied that request.

Minor update: the lawsuit will not be changing venues. I imagine the courts in Florida would be more favorable to the PGA Tour?

[Hoya Destroya]

Might be judge shopping.  The initial hurdle is to get the matter certified as a class action. Somewhat discretionary with the judge. If it doesn't get certified the case loses steam. My guess is that if it ever gets to a jury, a San Francisco Jury is going to be more worker biased than a  South Florida jury, which is why the plaintiff's chose San Francisco in the first place.  But difficult to see this case going to a jury. Ultimately, its the players who pay the compensation, but that may be nothing more than providing a general fund for health insurance and better on site temporary facilities (like a corporate tent) for caddies and their families. Just my guess

[iacas]

http://www.golfdigest.com/story/caddie-lawsuit-against-the-pga-tour-gets-thrown-out-by-judge

Quote

California court has thrown out a class-action lawsuit brought by caddies against the PGA Tour, reports Doug Ferguson of the Associated Press. The lawsuit, which was originally filed by 80 caddies on Feb. 3, 2015, wound up including 168 caddies. The crux of the complaint came from the caddies being forced to wear bibs that display tournament sponsors without getting a cut of the money. 

But U.S. District Court Judge Vince Chhabria ruled the PGA Tour's longtime policy didn't violate any law.

"The caddies' overall complaint about poor treatment by the Tour has merit, but this federal lawsuit about bibs does not," Chhabria wrote in a ruling issued on Feb. 9. 

"Caddies have been required to wear the bibs for decades," he continued. "So caddies know when they enter the profession, that wearing a bib during tournaments is part of the job. . . . for that reason, there is no merit to the caddies’ contention that contracts somehow prevent the Tour from requiring them to wear bibs."

Emphasis added by me.

[ay33660]

Wow some sanity in all of this ...... for now.

“I’m not overly surprised, but I am disappointed. I will strongly advise my clients to appeal, I like our chances in appeal,” Egdorf  (who is the lawyer for the caddies).

As the judge said " So caddies know when they enter the profession, that wearing a bib during tournaments is part of the job. ." so suck it up princesses.

If you have a problem with your compensation take it up with your professional. He is your employer not the PGA.

Oh and if you still insist that wearing a bib is offensive as you are not compensated for it then go get a ****'n job flipping burgers ..... but you still have to wear a shirt with a big "M" on it.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 13, 2016 by ay33660

[Pretzel]

33 minutes ago, ay33660 said:

“I’m not overly surprised, but I am disappointed. I will strongly advise my clients to appeal, I like our chances in appeal,” Egdorf  (who is the lawyer for the caddies).

"I like my chances at milking this case for an even greater amount of money, garnering me even more free publicity when it's discussed by the media! I will strongly advise my clients to write me another check."

But seriously, if he's not surprised by the ruling why on earth would he like their chances to appeal the decision? If that was the expected outcome, what factors would make it more likely that they do well in an appellate court?